OS 9 Server

in General Discussion edited January 2014
I was just thinking...uh-oh i know i know

...but wouldn't it have been better, for apple to take Mac OS 9, give it better stability and some other features and use taht as a server?

i mean to my knowledge (which is probably little) u just couldn't hack a mac running well anything up to 9. it just seems that OS X with its unix foundation is more vulnerable

i am away it offers better stability and multi-tasking for server but i dont see that it couldn't be added to 9 with a lot of work haha


  • Reply 1 of 7
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I don't know if it would have been possible to just "add stability." OS 9 was based on really old code, from OS 8, which was basically just leftover from System 7. OS 9 is just a fluffed-up System 7. It really needed replacing.

    Now, I wonder what would have happened if Apple had acquired Be instead of NeXT in 1996...
  • Reply 2 of 7
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    as i hear it the OS would have been FAST

    ...though i think NEXT has more technology apple wanted
  • Reply 3 of 7
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    As far as I know, Be incorporates a lot of the nice graphical features of OS X into a very slim package that runs quickly on any machine. Things like live resizing, dragging, and scrolling. I don't know much about it but I heard it's zooper fast.
  • Reply 4 of 7
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    But Be didn't have any server capabilities. No multi-user environment, none of the good UNIX stuff that Apple's using in OS X server. Considering the XServes aren't exactly something that they could just whip up in a couple months, I bet Apple knew they needed UNIX to be under-the-hood for their long range plans. It wasn't just a matter of stability.
  • Reply 5 of 7
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by ast3r3x:

    <strong>i am away it offers better stability and multi-tasking for server but i dont see that it couldn't be added to 9 with a lot of work</strong><hr></blockquote>

    That was Copland and Gershwin, and it didn't work.
  • Reply 6 of 7
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,289member
    Apple had a proposed feature called Guard Pages which were like quasi memory protection. Didn't work. OS9 was secure because it had very weak Remote Access. It just was not an OS that would lead itself to a Server environment well at all. Even AppleshareIP couldn't change this.

    When Copland/Gershwin went up in smoke that was it Apple was stuck. Apple learned alot about trying too hard for full backward compatibility. Doing so almost destroyed the company.
  • Reply 7 of 7
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    I think I read somewhere that OS 9 + 4D WebStar is pretty much the most secure server. If you go to <a href="http://www.netcraft.com"; target="_blank">www.netcraft.com</a> and look at <a href="http://www.army.mil"; target="_blank">www.army.mil</a> you can see that they run this (a while back there was an article of the army switching to Macs for webserving after being hit by some lame windoze attack).

    Here's an article on this:

    <a href="http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/201361"; target="_blank">http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/201361</a>;

    [ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: chych ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.